dren wrote:I don't think the tube is feeding the DD. I think it is blowing the beam or rear wing somehow. Perhaps from the end plates instead of the actual wing. The DD looks to increase the diffuser exit volume by connection through the starter hole.

The beam wing looks like it already has a slotted gurney.

Exactly my assessment. They are simply taking advantage of the CFM yielded from the starter hole positioned in a certain way in the diffuser. The actual volume of the diffuser increases, but I suspect they are saying it's part of the crash structure? That's they only way I fan figure they are getting away with it as they are gaining approx 80-100sq cm diffuser volume with such an expansion which is probably worth a couple tenths.

So the waste-gate blown diffusor got me thinking about other ways to blow the diffusor. Then this whole idea of Mercedes blowing the starter motor hole / quasi DDD popped up. Then I thought about the yawning hole in the back of the MB with the as-yet unexplained pipes. Then I thought about the air-box spillage idea and the fact that such a device would conveniently balance out the negative effect of throttle lift if you could somehow pipe it to the same area you were piping your exhaust? A fluidic valve should be able to accomplish this task no?

And then while writing this I thought "hey, wouldn't all this be a great reason for Merc to "alert" the fia to the possibility of throttle over-run as such a system would be in opposition to using the surplus air from the airbox?"

Air spillage from the roll hoop isn't enough to blow a diffuser, the only problem with it is it alters the flow to the rear wing when off throttle, not a huge amount but something which means the rear wing behaves differently under certain situations which is undesirable.

This hole seems to be identical the the RBR duct but instead of using the starter motor hole loophole they decided to section off a section on top of the diffuser instead. I'd be surprised if it was any more effective let alone a groundbreaking enhancement.

dren wrote:I don't think the tube is feeding the DD. I think it is blowing the beam or rear wing somehow. Perhaps from the end plates instead of the actual wing. The DD looks to increase the diffuser exit volume by connection through the starter hole.

The beam wing looks like it already has a slotted gurney.

Exactly my assessment. They are simply taking advantage of the CFM yielded from the starter hole positioned in a certain way in the diffuser. The actual volume of the diffuser increases, but I suspect they are saying it's part of the crash structure? That's they only way I fan figure they are getting away with it as they are gaining approx 80-100sq cm diffuser volume with such an expansion which is probably worth a couple tenths.

I don't see it. The FIA would be beyond pissed if somebody showed up with a loopholed DDD.

“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

Owen.C93 wrote:Air spillage from the roll hoop isn't enough to blow a diffuser, the only problem with it is it alters the flow to the rear wing when off throttle, not a huge amount but something which means the rear wing behaves differently under certain situations which is undesirable.

I understand this part, but in my mind there is possibly more air available than simply what spills over off-throttle? As in if you could somehow scavenge the maximum air which could pass through the air-box, minus what the engine needs on idle?

Jack Malone wrote:How acurate are those measuring numbers? Have they been checked with official data info or are they based only on the pictures?

Great job anyway!

The regs specify a fixed dimension from front of the front wing to the front axle. It is roughly 1000, so that would give more accurate scaling. I used the leading edge of the nearside endplate to the centre of the wheel as they are roughly in the same plane.Check this out, too: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=11818&start=30 , at the bottom of the page.

xpensive wrote:I must admit that this car seems to have a completely different level of attention to detail, when compared to the W02.

I would really like to see what they have going on under those clever sidepods as yes, they are very low. Also, around the engine cover area they do no appear to bulge in a draped fashion like the Mclaren or Red Bull, but rather they are a straight and low path to the back.